Bad...Can a "child" really be dangerous?

This is a discussion on Bad...Can a "child" really be dangerous? within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Evil takes many forms. Kill them. Kill them now and never look back....

I have seen so many people and many who you can see what they are by the look in their eyes. Some are very kind and sweet...it beams from their eyes. There are those who do horrible things and then sober up and you can see the pain and torture they will live with. Then there is the ones with dark, dead eyes even though they are alive. Like a shark's eyes. Those are the scary ones. You can actually see the evil in them.

A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
Robert Heinlein

A woman must not depend on protection by men. A woman must learn to protect herself.
Susan B. Anthony
A armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one has to back it up with his life.
Robert Heinlein

When I was a kid I know for a fact it wasn't this bad. Then again, most every kid came from a two parent family and knew better than to try drugs or test the parents authority. Two thirds of everyone I knew went to church on Sunday. Most everyone I associated with had manners and addressed elders with, yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am.

With things progressing as bad as it is today, what will tomorrow bring?

You know what freaks me out? That there are people who sat next to these two boys, enjoying their pizza, clueless about what they had just done... Makes me wonder not if, but how often I've sat next to cold blooded murderers.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety), by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” by H. L. Mencken

The downfall of today's society is from the lack of woodsheds and the use thereof. The world just needs a good whoopin'.

Gotta agree with this! When I was a kid, kids showed respect to teachers, parents, and all adults. Yes sir, no sir, yes mam, no mam, was the NORM! I you screwed up in school, you got your butt spanked by one of the coaches with a big, oak paddle! And if your parents found out you had gotten in trouble at school, you got your butt beat again at home! The "downfall" of society began with the namby-pamby child rearing theories of Dr Spock at his ilk back in the mid-late 60s. Now, kids don't respect authority, their elders, teachers, etc.

I'd replied back to that other post that you are just as dead if you are shot by an 8 year old or an 80 year old, and I would NOT hesitate to shoot if I felt my life or the life of a loved one was in danger, regardless of the age of the "punk" with the gun! And I agree that some people are just plain EVIL and should be removed from society--permanently!

There are some people just born bad. There are some that become bad by being with the wrong people. There are others that make bad choices due to trying drugs/alcohol.

Others have trouble overcoming the terrible family life they start out in. Some never make it out of the cycle of problems they were born into.

The kids born bad, are never going to be good. In the end, the degree of bad is what matters. Trust me, there are degree of violence within the people that are born bad. Thankfully the number of kids born as sociopaths is small.

The kids that are corrupted and become numb to life are almost as bad as the born sociopaths. They are capable of some truly depraved actions as well. What's amazing is how the parents will justify the horrific actions of the kids they failed. They created a sinking ship and toss their kids over the side. Those kids are only kept from drowning by a rope tied to them as long as they can keep receiving a welfare check for the kid.

The number of kids that come from broken families causing problems is a rising number.

If he's armed with a baseball bat or club type device, then I would give a hard kick to push him away and then spank him a few times after I control him, but if its a knife or gun, he's going to the hospital or graveyard.

Not being a internet know-it-all. But I know a teenager like this personally. The system won't do anything about it. If the parent spanks the kid, CPS just shows up and presses charges. Law Enforcements hands are tied because he or she is a juvenile and most if not all juvenile centers are already double booked. But even so CPS, the ones that are supposed to do something about it...They make no connection that the reason the bad apple has a welt from his mother is because he tried molest his own sister. Instead of sending the kid to juvie, He gets more 'counseling' regarding feelings he will never have. It's all a joke. Even if the 'subject' draws blood you are still open to prosecution for child abuse if you intervene. (friend of my family) Utter and complete nonsense. We have a right to protect ourselves from these future felons. Today it's skinning the neighbors cat, tomorrow it could be your life. Just be aware that times have changed. The term 'bad guy' knows no gender/age. Stay alert and stay alive.

Spirit asked, " can a 'child' really be dangerous." Obviously the answer is yes.

That said, many folks have responded to a slightly different issue-- can a child act out of "evil" (a religious construct),
or out of sheer malice. I have no doubt many do act out of sheer malice, and I will remain content to leave defining the source of the malice to others.

Now, back to the question about "dangerous." A child can be dangerous not because they are "evil" or acting from malice,
but because they are immature and incapable of fully appreciating the consequences of what they are doing. Many
very violent early teens fall in this category to some degree. They know violence is wrong, but don't know
the full reality of consequences from tossing someone off a roof top. Their brains still evaluate things as they happen in
the cartoon world-- finality isn't in the picture for them.

The age and maturity and the IQ of the child all have to be factored in to assess whether a dangerous act was motivated from malice and whether or not the child had any intellectual understanding of the consequences of a dangerous act.

The old saying, "kids do the darndest things applies."

Let's not confuse a dangerous act with an act of malice. The end result might be the same but the "guilt" and the punishment
which should apply must be different.

BTW, there are plenty of folks who are dangerous who are non-violent. They don't act out physically, but they
inflict emotional and financial harm while knowing full well that they are harming others. Verbal bullies or nowadays
internet bullies fall in this category.

Similarly the non-violent dangerous are the bosses who
maliciously keep their employees constantly fearful about their jobs; they are the clerks who make off with money while
cooking the books to hide what they are doing. These are dangerous people too; they have merely substituted
non-violent techniques for violent ones.

If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
Andrew Jackson

Spirit asked, " can a 'child' really be dangerous." Obviously the answer is yes.

That said, many folks have responded to a slightly different issue-- can a child act out of "evil" (a religious construct),
or out of sheer malice. I have no doubt many do act out of sheer malice, and I will remain content to leave defining the source of the malice to others.

Now, back to the question about "dangerous." A child can be dangerous not because they are "evil" or acting from malice,
but because they are immature and incapable of fully appreciating the consequences of what they are doing. Many
very violent early teens fall in this category to some degree. They know violence is wrong, but don't know
the full reality of consequences from tossing someone off a roof top. Their brains still evaluate things as they happen in
the cartoon world-- finality isn't in the picture for them.

The age and maturity and the IQ of the child all have to be factored in to assess whether a dangerous act was motivated from malice and whether or not the child had any intellectual understanding of the consequences of a dangerous act.

The old saying, "kids do the darndest things applies."

Let's not confuse a dangerous act with an act of malice. The end result might be the same but the "guilt" and the punishment
which should apply must be different.

BTW, there are plenty of folks who are dangerous who are non-violent. They don't act out physically, but they
inflict emotional and financial harm while knowing full well that they are harming others. Verbal bullies or nowadays
internet bullies fall in this category.

Similarly the non-violent dangerous are the bosses who
maliciously keep their employees constantly fearful about their jobs; they are the clerks who make off with money while
cooking the books to hide what they are doing. These are dangerous people too; they have merely substituted
non-violent techniques for violent ones.